Fred Watson, who was mentioned in a DOJ report on abuses by Ferguson police, says he was arrested and prosecuted for no good reason.

In its 2015 report on the Ferguson, Missouri, police department's rights-violating, revenue-maximizing enforcement of the city's municipal code, the Justice Department described a 32-year-old African-American man who was accosted by a cop while "sitting in his car cooling off after playing basketball" in a local park on a summer afternoon in 2012. That man was Fred Watson, a Navy veteran who at the time worked as a cybersecurity contractor for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. His encounter with Ferguson Officer Eddie Boyd III resulted in nine charges that caused Watson to lose his security clearance and his job. Yesterday, more than five years after the incident, the city of Ferguson finally dropped all nine charges against Watson.

According to a federal awsuit that Watson filed against Boyd and the city last July, the officer approached him as he sat in his parked car and shouted, "Put your hand on the steering wheel! Do you know why I'm stopping you? Do you know why I pulled you over?" Boyd's command and questions struck Watson as strange, inasmuch as he had not been pulled over. He pointed that out to Boyd, who demanded his driver's license, proof of insurance, and Social Security number.

When Watson asked why Boyd needed that information, since he had no reason to think Watson had done anything wrong, Boyd suggested that Watson might be a pedophile, looking for victims at the park. When Boyd indicated that he planned to write Watson a ticket, Watson asked why, and Boyd replied, "I think your tint is too dark, and I can give you a ticket for that." Lest you get the wrong impression, I should clarify that Boyd, one of Ferguson's few black officers, was referring to the windows of Watson's car.

In addition to asking why he was being detained, Watson did several things that apparently irked Boyd. He offered to retrieve his driver's license from the rear seat but declined to give his Social Security number. He asked for Boyd's name and badge number (which Boyd refused to give). He picked up his phone and tried to call 911. He declined to toss his car keys out the window, worried about how Boyd, who at this point had taken out his gun, might respond if he again moved his hands from the steering wheel. He refused to consent to a search of his car.

After three other officers arrived at the scene, Boyd handcuffed Watson and took him to the police station. The car was towed, and according to the complaint Boyd repeatedly searched it without consent or probable cause. Watson had to pay a $700 bond to get out of jail. When he retrieved the vehicle, he says, his possessions were in disarray, and $2,000 (tuition money for his kids) was missing.

Watson initially faced seven charges, including driving without a license (which he had), driving without proper insurance (ditto), driving an unregistered car (the registration was in the vehicle), and driving a car with windows that were illegally tinted (which, according to the complaint, they weren't). Boyd even charged Watson, who was sitting in a parked car, with failure to wear a seat belt. After Watson tried to file a complaint with the police department about Boyd's behavior, the officer tacked on two more charges: making a false declaration and failing to comply with a police officer's order.

Boyd probably expected Watson to swallow his pride and pay his fines, but instead he fought the charges. The city dragged out the case for years, and as a result Watson lost the top-secret security clearance he needed to keep his job. "Without this clearance, Mr. Watson is unable to find employment in the highly specialized field of government cybersecurity," the lawsuit says. "As a result, he has remained jobless for most of the past five years and is now undertaking efforts to begin a new career."

By dropping the charges now, Ferguson Prosecuting Attorney Lee Clayton Goodman lends credibility to Watson's case against Boyd and the city, which accuses them of violating his rights under the Fourth, First, and 14th amendments. The New York Timessays Goodman "declined to discuss the matter."

Last year the Timesnoted that as a St. Louis police officer, Boyd "pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl in the face in 2006, and in 2007 struck a child in the face with his gun or handcuffs before falsifying a police report, according to Missouri Department of Public Safety Records." In addition to Watson's lawsuit, Boyd "is being sued by a woman in Ferguson who said he arrested her after she asked for his name at the scene of a traffic accident."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

I’m making over $12k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,…Go this web and start your work… Good luck.. http://www.startonlinejob.com

Last year the Times noted that as a St. Louis police officer, Boyd “pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl in the face in 2006, and in 2007 struck a child in the face with his gun or handcuffs before falsifying a police report, according to Missouri Department of Public Safety Records.” In addition to Watson’s lawsuit, Boyd “is being sued by a woman in Ferguson who said he arrested her after she asked for his name at the scene of a traffic accident.”

Okay but he’s definitely been fired and barred from ever serving as a cop again, right?

Doctors who face discipline by hospitals or state boards, or are sued by patients, are automatically reported to the National Practitioners Data Bank. This remains a black mark against them for all to see for the remainder of their careers. Surely, all the same arguments that applied to instituting the NPDB for doctors are equally valid for cops? Of course, doctors are forbidden by the federal government from unionizing. Might that explain the difference?

On the bright-side, if doctors unionized they could beat the crap out of you, then treat you right away. I say, ‘bright-side’, because whereas most would see a conflict of interests, I tend to look at the positive convenience of it all.

By dropping the charges now, Ferguson Prosecuting Attorney Lee Clayton Goodman lends credibility to Watson’s case against Boyd and the city, which accuses them of violating his rights under the Fourth, First, and 14th amendments. The New York Times says Goodman “declined to discuss the matter.”

I wish I could do that after committing a massive wrong doing. “Nah, don’t really feel like it right now.”

The clearance process can be a beast, especially for top secret clearances. Many things can trigger a review, including being arrested. Non-criminal issues, such as financial problems or unexplained wealth, or seeing a therapist (they do ask this on clearance forms) can also trigger a review.

Bottom line – clearances are not an entitlement, and can be revoked based on someone’s opinion of your trustworthiness. It’s a borderline witch hunt in some cases.

I know they get all up in your shit, which is why I shied away from it when I started moving that direction. First, I didn’t want to work for the federal government, even if it meant killer pay, etc. I might have sucked it up and done it, but, really I did not like what I was hearing from others about the process of acquiring clearance. And I’m sure I would not have gotten it anyway. I’m just not the type.

There is some rationale to most of the process. Financial problems leave you open to bribery. Unexplained wealth means criminal activity (or mostly stupidity); if it is legal you can explain it and all is well. Mostly the initial investigation is to see if there are things in your background that can be used to coerce you into spying. I was asking the interviewer about some of the stuff, like drug use, and he said they didn’t so much care about the use, but if you lied about it, you were open to blackmail. So – – – It is pretty invasive (went back 15 years when I got mine), but having one does let you serve the country in some very interesting ways. I had to agree not to go to a list of 15 countries, most of which no longer exist. But I wasn’t going to any of them anyway.

There is some rationale to most of the process…. Mostly the initial investigation is to see if there are things in your background that can be used to coerce you into spying

Kinda. Sorta. Not really.

Gent I know (who was the epitome of white bread squeaky-clean) described the harrowing process to reaffirm his security clearance. The investigator would harangue him for hours, looking for something to hanging him on.

After a few years of this he got wise and started embellishing to the investigator over some minor falling, like drinking too much (he never drank).

His clearance interviews took no more than 40 minutes afterwards.

Truth of the matter the interview is to coerce you. If something like drug use didn’t matter then there would be no reason to ask about it. It would be like asking if you masturbated to obese midget clown porn. Now that’s something to blackmail someone over.

The investigator has already done the research to determine if you are a security risk. The interview is little more than a game of father confessor. Admit your sin or your career is over.

Last year the Times noted that as a St. Louis police officer, Boyd “pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl in the face in 2006, and in 2007 struck a child in the face with his gun or handcuffs before falsifying a police report, according to Missouri Department of Public Safety Records.” In addition to Watson’s lawsuit, Boyd “is being sued by a woman in Ferguson who said he arrested her after she asked for his name at the scene of a traffic accident.”

Sometimes, when I read about wild abuses of power like this one, I literally get a bit dizzy. Such bald-faced abuse of power stuns me. DOJ knows about this and they aren’t up their collective ass sideways? Why not? Have the defense attorneys filed complaints with the MO Bar on the persecutors? Why not?